AtmanIsBrahman

As someone who does consciousness work/ Pure Philosophy regularly, you have to think about why people don't do this stuff. Practically no one is doing legitimate truthseeking aside from Leo, Peter Ralston, and some other spiritual people. Academic philosophers don't do it, and scientists certainly don't do it. After thinking about it for a while, I realized that the reason why no one does it is not intelligence (the ego wants to think it's more intelligent than others), it's something else. It's a combination of openmindedness, resistance to groupthink, independence of thought, and genuine desire for truth. Plenty of people with lots of cognitive firepower are absolutely deluded -- in fact, basically all of them. Most people don't realize that their mind is a SHITSTAIN. It's literally too disgusting to come anywhere close to truth. Watching back Leo's podcast with DemistifySci, they don't realize that the reason they don't understand truth is because their mind is a shitstain! They are zombies that lack the consciousness to come anywhere close to knowing what an Absolute is. People are too lazy to spend time truthseeking and then act like they are not deluded zombies. Like, hello... you are a deluded zombie! You don't know what you're speculating about! You really think you can touch God before washing the shit off of yourself?? The only way not to be deluded is to open your heart to truth. It's a simple decision to have a pure mind that is open to receiving whatever truth it might experience, and totally fine with knowing nothing forever. People who think truth is theorizing have no idea what the depth of truth is. And the reason for all of this is that people are too connected to the hive mind of mankind. Humans are ignorant, filthy pigs; why would you connect yourself to their hive mind? Think for yourself. Think beautiful thoughts. That's all there is to life. The only way to know God is to keep your mind open for a whole lifetime.

It's not really worth my time to get in an argument. I acknowledge your perspective.

I'm not doing groupthink. But you can think whatever you want to think. There's no way of proving one way or another.

I've been contemplating the question, "Can two consciousnesses exist?" I came to the conclusion that the answer is no, and that's why solipsism is true. Here is an illustration: It's impossible for 2 consciousnesses to mutually see each other because that is just a possibility imagined by consciousness. Consciousness is imagining the two people, and it itself is neither one of them. When you're assuming that other people exist, it's because you don't know what you are. You are not the body, nor any object of sense-perception. You are nothing. As is shown in the drawing, the human "you" imagines yourself and someone else mutually seeing each other, but really there is just you seeing the other person. At first you think that "you" is your body, but the body is something that appears in consciousness, so it can't be the one that is seeing. The one that is seeing isn't the brain either, that's just more mental content. The source of seeing is NOTHING. In other words, the thing that is seeing is seeing itself. You are the SEER, and there are no other seers. If you think about it, it's obvious that the idea of two consciousnesses existing is absolutely ridiculous. What makes more sense, that there are millions of consciousnesses somehow seeing each other or that there is one seer imagining all of them? As Leo has explained, there is only one self-luminous Mind that could possibly exist. This means that when you are looking at someone in the eye, they can't actually see you. All people and things are moving sense-objects generated by your own mind, and as soon as your mind stops they will stop moving like a wind-up toy. This is why no one survives your death, as Leo has explained. When you die, all of your imaginings get taken back with you because they were never real in the first place. So being worried about anything happening after your death is delusion -- it means you still believe in an external world.

I just had this insight about how I'm imagining everything: The Godhead doesn’t hold memory because it’s the first thing. It has to be created! All memory is a construction. Consciousness in its base form doesn’t hold any memory; it’s the thing that imagines memory. All memory is an act of the imagination creating something out of nothing. Your memories are a story invented for yourself to live a life over a set period of years with a certain life story. Then when you die or before you are born, they disappear because they were never real in the first place. All that has to happen for memories to disappear is for them to be unimagined, which is why psychedelics wipe out memory (to a certain extent), approaching the point of actual death.

This is a serious thread. I recently got interested in manifestation, which led to finding all kinds of interesting topics such as conscious creation, law of attraction, law of assumption, and even magic. Now, magic (often spelled magick) is defined by Aleister Crowley as "The science and art of causing change to occur in conformity with will." This is a good definition; magic basically is changing reality purely through your mind. Why do I think this is real? Metaphysics. Reality is consciousness, and there is really no material world. Further, you are this consciousness. So you can change consciousness (yourself) however you want. It's really that simple. I honestly don't understand how so many spiritual people aren't aware of this. I even saw Leo recently saying something like "the way manifestation really works is that it motivates you to take action on what you're manifesting." No!!!! That is literally applying the materialist paradigm's idea that you are separate from the external world and so you can't change it unless you grab a jackhammer or some lab tools. Lol. Here are some more reasons to believe magic is real: You are GOD! Duh. You think God can't change material reality? Every limit is imagined by consciousness and therefore can be unimagined (See Leo's "8 Unique and Original Proofs of God"). This means there really are no limits. You are imagining all limitation. Mechanisms are an illusion. There are no mechanisms in reality; they are a feeble attempt by science to explain reality. You will never explain the mechanism of anything fully (because it is infinity), you will just get a better pretense of knowing it. Since there are no mechanisms, you can literally manifest something physically impossible. Every spiritual tradition talks about magic. People have believed in magic for the entirety of history. Please tell me your take on this. I'm interested in what your objections are. And only answer if you understand that Reality is Consciousness, otherwise none of this will make sense. @Leo Gura I'd be very interested to hear your opinion on this. I think I might've made a big discovery in this field.

A person sharing their personal experience with how to manifest effectively.

This is a thread -- potentially to become a megathread -- for posting resources about manifestation, magic, reality shifting, and anything similar. I will be posting videos explaining the theory behind manifestation, practical tips and tricks, scientific evidence, and testimonies. Post any high quality resources you find and would like to share. The goal here is open-minded investigation into whether manifestation is real, how to do it if it is real, and what the metaphysical implications for reality are. "Magic is the science and art of causing change to occur in conformity with will" - Aleister Crowley

A good crash course on Neville Goddard's thought. Yes, it is ai, but good nonetheless.

The worst part about this work is when you already have very high intelligence naturally and then add a treasure trove of actualized.org wisdom on top of it. It becomes almost impossible not to see humans as apes.

Tips & Techniques video. Assumes some prior knowledge

This mixes experimental evidence about mind-body connection (which is very convincing, by the way) with Neville Goddard's teaching of the power of assumption and living out the assumption. An interesting tidbit is that old people who were told to method-act being in the time period when they were 20 years younger (in terms of technology, culture, etc.) showed improvement in numerous health markers after only a few days.

I know, but it's kind of true. I think there's a certain purging process that comes from going full misanthrope every once in a while. Being a spiritual misanthrope is an especially fun form of it. It's worth going through the process of being upset with low-consciousness people, then integrating it and coming to a more loving perspective.

That being said, people can't help being where they're at and all is Love at the end of the day

Having a favorite philosopher

@Leo Gura I don’t understand how you can make a blog post about Hallucinating Tom Cruise and then say manifestation isn’t real.

I would post this in high consciousness resources, but since the sub-forum is closed I'll have to post here. Revelations of Divine Love is a high-consciousness resource where the medieval Christian anchoress Julian of Norwich describes her visions of God. This is interesting for a couple reasons: 1) insights into the nature of Love and suffering, 2) how spiral dynamics stage affects mystical visions. Here are some of her visions and insights. She has a vision of a hazelnut, which represents the entire universe and God's love for it. "I looked at it and thought, 'What can this be?' And the answer came to me, 'It is all that is made.' I wondered how it could last, for it was so small I thought it might suddenly disappear. And the answer in my mind was, 'It lasts and will last for ever because God loves it; and in the same way everything exists through the love of God.' " God's love, or Existence's self-love, is what eternally sustains everything. She saw a lot of things in the visions, but... "I did not see sin; for I believe it has no sort of substance nor portion of being, nor would it be recognized were it not for the suffering which it causes." "And when I saw that God has made all things, I saw nothing of you [sin]; and when I saw that God is in all things, I saw nothing of you; and when I saw that God does all things that are done, greater and lesser, I saw nothing of you.” "How can anything be amiss?" You get the point. Sin is not real; it is a human delusion. Julian obviously had to see through a lot of Christian conditioning to get this point. There is nothing that is morally wrong: shooting someone in the head, genocide, etc. -- it is all good from the absolute point of view. God is too good to see anything as evil. It perfectly understands and loves everything. God loves and willingly undergoes suffering "And in these words, 'If I could suffer more, I would suffer more,' I truly saw that he was willing to die as often as he was able to die, and love would never let him rest until he had done it." God is an infinite suffering manufacturer. This is because suffering isn't actually real, so there is no reason to avoid it. There is no suffering as we think of it to a completely unbiased mind. My insights This helped me realize that not only can suffering be transcended -- a hypothesis that anyone who's heard of spirituality is aware of -- but it was never real in the first place. Suffering is one of the greatest illusions. Every time you are suffering, you are completely and utterly deluded. This doesn't mean you will transcend all of it, but you can use this principle to reframe all the suffering you experience. Also, suffering is the same thing as sin. The human ideas of suffering and sin (something being morally wrong) are both offshoots of the same delusion; neither are real. ____________________________________________________________________ If you guys found this interesting, I can write a little bit about how spiral dynamics plays into this too.

As a quick update: I'm still trying to manifest various things. I have to admit that so far I haven't had any results. I did get some results from a more psychological manifestation, but haven't been able to manifest anything physical so far. Due to the theoretical reasons for thinking this should be possible, I'm not going to be giving up for a while. Expect more updates.

Matt Dillahunty is like a toddler struggling to learn how to walk compared to Leo. There is no debate to be had. It’s about consciousness.

Julian of Norwich is a stage blue Christian and she spends much of the book making theological speculations based on her visions, which are largely clouded in Christian dogma (such as the Trinity, original sin, hell, etc.). A low stage of cognitive development makes one's interpretations of mystical experience very misled. Also, visions come in the symbols you understand at the time, which for her were Christian ones. Nonetheless, the endearing part of all this is that the truth still sneaks in. She is indoctrinated into a Christian worldview, but despite this fact her intention is pure enough to get a glimpse of truth. She essentially wants to be closer to God, and God shows her that it isn't by sinning less that she gets there but by dropping the notion of sin altogether and realizing that everything is Love. The lesson in my mind is that having a pure intention is most important in spiritual work. As long as you have a pure intention, you will have some kind of insight or awakening given enough time. This is the power of direct experience over intellectual understanding.

Thanks, glad it was insightful!

It almost seems to simple. But maybe that's not a mistake. I don't know, I'll have to contemplate this more. I'd be interested to see what Leo has to say.

I don't see why not. God doesn't rely on mechanisms. It's a different question whether and when this will show up in our physical consensus reality though.

I think the only way to answer this question is to figure out what others being conscious even means. How do you know that others are conscious, let alone AI? It's plausible that AI can be conscious in the same way that others can be, but what is the nature of others' consciousness and how does it compare to your own consciousness? You have to go through solipsism to answer this question, which of course these materialist tech fools are miles away from.

@Leo Gura I have a question about solipsism. When you communicate solipsism to "others," are they having a conscious experience of receiving the message? As I remember, in the solipsism video you said that the viewer is imagining you having a conscious experience. In the same video, you claimed to be conscious that there is no one to teach and you're just playing a game with yourself. So which one is it: are you imagining the viewer or is the viewer imagining you? When you tell the viewer that they are imagining you, from your point of view are you telling a being you imagined that they are imagining you? By the way, I know this assumes you have a point of view. The confusing part to me is that if you think the viewer is imagining you, you can't truly believe you are God because that would contradict your absolute sovereignty.